Rather than an agency that is accountable to publicly elected officials, in your mind profit driven entertainment businesses would perform this role more reliably?
Self-responsibility is just a phrase. When elaborated into the idea you have suggested it crumbles. By the time the market corrects industrial causes of human suffering, far too much preventable suffering will have occurred.
Unless you are philosophically indifferent to human suffering your ideas about self-responsibility are empty nonsense. You have no grounds to criticize others for childish sentiments.
But this is starting from a conclusion that government bureaus are more effective at alleviating human suffering than market competition. That they're faster, and more effective, and so on.
That's simply not true, and we have the entire experience of the eastern bloc that's conclusively proven it's not true.
You're simply pretending organisations like the FDA are something they're not, and that they're nothing but good, and all ills must be blamed on private actors. That's picking your conclusion first based on an emotional need to have a warm cozy paternalistic fantasy of a protector government.
Whereas in reality it's the opposite. The rapid innovation of the private sector, driven by consumers who want their suffering alleviated in the fastest and most effective way, is the suffering alleviator. And the slow, obstructive, and competition-free corrupted public sector, the FDA, is the one causing drug innovation costs to be sky high, thereby causing excess deaths and suffering that the private sector would otherwise have been preventing.
You're siding with the baddy and blaming the goodies for his wrongdoing.
No, I'm not pretending that the FDA is nothing but good, that is a straw man. What I said was correct as I said it, you didn't need to invent a point that I did not make.
Your arguments come from a hypercapitalist fantasy that systemically fails to protect vulnerable populations. Letting market forces satisfy the need of alleviating human suffering is terribly naive nonsense. When the corporations get around to policing themselves, if they do at all, the human toll will be far greater than if we as a society continue to vote for representatives who will reign them in.
You see and comprehend flaws in the current system, but you for some reason cannot see or comprehend that the dumb things you are writing here are much worse.
Bringing up paternalism in this conversation is especially puerile nonsense.
I laughed quite hard about the "vote for people to reign them in". Guess what: they don't care about you at all. They don't even know you. They know the big drug companies quite well though... You might say they even get along well.
A vote is simply an abdication of responsiblity to people far away, who you don't even know, who don't even have liability if they fail to do as they promised.
I guess you're quite young. You'll learn how the world is eventually. You think you're fighting your own little independent fight, but you're actually just an ant serving a nest you've never seen.
I share your opinion on the likely veracity of the allegations and would also like an explanation for the flagging of this post and the repeated deletions of similar posts.
Not sure if you are speaking out of knowledge of this particular individual but with respect to other cultures, a biological male presenting as female does not necessarily mean trans the way western cultures think of it.
Japanese Okama culture, for instance, is an entirely different animal. I don't know this specific person just thought I'd share that misgendering isn't as black and white as even a lot of trans people think it is.
No, the person you replied to was correct (for my region and presumably his). My knowledge of the term mirrors his and I'm kind of disappointed to see so many people asserting there is no common, derogatory, gendered use of the term just because they are unfamiliar with it.
I see a lot of people with no knowledge or experience with this common usage. That's fine, but it's arrogant to assume things you don't know are nonsense.
> I'm kind of disappointed to see so many people asserting there is no common, derogatory, gendered use of the term just because they are unfamiliar with it.
Maybe worth reconsidering if your understanding of the term is truly "common."
> That's fine, but it's arrogant to assume things you don't know are nonsense.
It also seems pretty arrogant to assert you know better than everyone else.
> It also seems pretty arrogant to assert you know better than everyone else.
I did not assert that. I made a correction, which was in fact correct.
The meaning does exist, and commonly, even if in regions you are unfamiliar with. I did not misuse the word common. I think you just emotionally reacted to being called arrogant, when in fact it was a merited criticism.
It may have a gendered connotation some places, I definitely don’t think it does in my English-speaking country (Australia). Screeching primarily used for inanimate objects (wheels, alarms, etc.) and animals and then secondarily mostly in a non-gendered way for children.
Interestingly the examples in both the entry from Oxford that Google brought up when I searched the term, and the second example in the Cambridge dictionaries are both boys doing the screeching. The other examples are inanimate and screeching describing the experience of tinnitus. So it seems the UK is similar.
So potentially for much of the English-speaking world this term wouldn’t bring up thought of any kind of gendered slur. So it goes both ways - just because something is the case in your region doesn’t mean it’s true across the board.
> So it goes both ways - just because something is the case in your region doesn’t mean it’s true across the board.
I never said nor suggested that it did. I was criticizing the people saying it is not a common usage because they hadn't heard it. You and the other user trying to correct me by repeating how you are from a place where the meaning is different both completely missed the point.
The meaning exists, and is used derogatorily, and definitely commonly in some places. None of what you wrote has any bearing on that.
> If you know anyone into crypto you would know they talk about it non stop.
Not really. There are a lot of people holding, mining, DCA'ing into projects they believe in who have no trouble at all keeping it to themselves.
Your remarks about gambling are similarly projecting a portion of the community onto the rest. Those traders who treat it as a speculative asset are gambling as you say, and tend to be obsessive in the way you describe, but you seem not to be aware of everyone who deals with crypto differently than you did.
There are a lot of crypto projects that people don't expect to moon, that effectively serve their purpose right now, and will just get better at it in the future. None of what you wrote is nearly as generally true as you made it out to be.
Yep, exactly. I've been working in crypto for 4 years and counting, still haven't purchased a single token as an investment. I don't like downside risk, I like to build product. We've weathered one bear market, we'll weather another.
Thankfully there's cool stuff in the ecosystem that isn't a scam, but it's not newsworthy, so it doesn't go viral.
One of the cool parts of crypto is that it enables new forms of social coordination that take place entirely within an online context. We haven't even scratched the surface of what could be possible with DAOs; the UIs and educational materials don't exist yet.
But given how online people are in general (and they're only likely to become more online in the future), it's natural they'll want digitally-native ways to organize themselves, represent ownership, qualify membership, etc.
The shift in concept required here is from viewing a token as "an investment" to viewing it as a form of legible social proof within its community context, which becomes more meaningful as communities grow beyond the "tipping point" where interpersonal proof (think webs-of-trust) is sufficient for coordination. NFTs (yes, they're still around!) are already serving this function for certain experimental communities (and even in less experimental ones, see POAPs).
In general, everything above is still in the experimental, live or die phase. We don't quite know where it's going. But it's pretty damn cool to watch if you're deeply invested in the internet as a medium (and as someone who "grew up online", I absolutely am).
I'm curious to dig into this a bit more. In general, I'm skeptical about those use cases.
* If it's a governance token system where more money == more power...well, I just don't think it's a good idea in general.
* If it's a system that tries to replicate the idea of one person/one vote, you have to have KYC (and re-KYC upon membership transfer) or it devolves into the first case. Then the entity doing KYC has centralized control over membership, so it seems like storing membership info on a ledger doesn't offer any benefits compared to just having a central membership database.
To address the latter case first: what you gain is standardization and interoperability, where the crypto toolbox acts as a protocol. Even if you're doing KYC in a centralized way, you can plug your token/DAO into any tool that supports it and use their interfaces. At least in theory. Good interfaces don't quite exist yet (it's being worked on). I'm sure there's already web2 tools out there, but the ideal web3 case is far lower friction, requiring no web hosting, deployment, trusted middlemen, etc. The proof of this will be in its success or failure, I'm still not sure how it'll play out.
Regarding the former case, of money and power... this one is a little harder. In theory, if you're a part of some community, and a very rich person wanted to fuck up or infiltrate your community by leveraging their wealth, they could probably figure out a way to do it, crypto or not. At least in this case, the existing community members stand to reap some sort of benefit from it, in the sense that a new whale's buy-in will increase the value of their existing holdings. Then they can all cash out and start a new thing someplace else. It has a similar form and moral valence as neighborhood gentrification (but without the racialized element).
I tend to think most communities will solve this by having some external aim of coordination that discourages people from just speculating (which makes sense given that social proof exists relative to the community in question), even if the balance of power is determined based on buy-in. But again, I don't really know how it will play out in practice, if more regular people will actually take up these tools for non-speculation reasons, etc.
Interesting. Do you have some resources or recommended reading you can suggest for crypto in the context of social coordination or these other shifts in concept you mentioned? I don't doubt there's interesting applications for some of this tech that have nothing do with the usual hype. I would be curious to read up on some of these developments.
To be completely honest--and I don't mean to sound mean--that doesn't seem very cool at all to me. That's a lot of words to say that with crypto you can own a token that signifies you're a part of a community. And that's the coolest thing you can think of. The iPhone is much cooler than that, I use it all day. And Steve Jobs didn't talk about it nearly as much before it started being used widely.
The potential is way beyond just "proof of membership", but that's the only tool that's currently out there and in active usage, as far as I know.
When I say coordination, I mean all sorts of collective decision-making and agency can take place using crypto as a medium, if someone has a vision and enough people are invested in making it happen, see: https://otherinter.net/research/squad-wealth/. Basically, if you need to get groups of people to align themselves and act in concert, and it's happening over the internet, crypto has the potential to make that happen. The technology is fundamentally social in nature, whereas an iPhone is fundamentally a personal object that happens to include some social tooling.
I don't know how it's going to look. Maybe groups will work together to purchase and maintain land. Maybe you'll see digital guilds or unions forming around creative niches. Regen (https://www.regen.network/) is working on communities for landowners who want to get carbon credits. It's really early. Maybe nothing will happen at all, and I'll look back on these posts with embarrassment. But it's exciting to work on projects building stuff that really doesn't exist yet, if only to see what happens.
(oh, and, people really aren't talking about this side of crypto at all. this is an entirely separate thing from bitcoin and defi)
I'm extremely skeptical that this silent majority exists because I don't see crypto being used for anything other than hodl-ing. Do you have indicators you can point to of cryptocurrency being used as a real currency?
Whether or not you think NFTs are stupid and totally worthless, there's a fairly extensive economy based around fine art NFTs where collectors (who view them more as consumption goods than investments) buy and sell in ETH. And despite wild fluctuations in ETH<>USD, people's mental accounting is generally denominated in ETH.
I'm unconvinced that most people who buy NFTs are doing it for non-gambling reasons. Where's the market in smart displays you can hook up to your wallet and show you your NFTs? Other than Twitter hexagons, are people doing anything with their NFTs?
I have seen very few people talking about the price of something in ETH without a parenthetical giving the current USD value.
As I said, I'm not trying to convince you that they aren't stupid and worthless here -- just that there's a flourishing and highly functioning ecosystem built around them, which couldn't really exist in any other context.
Also, there are plenty of smart display companies popping up. Check out Infinite Objects or Atomic Forms.
At the same time, I assume that most of the liquidity in the markets come from professionals and the people described in GP, whereas the casual retail/investors you describe tend to not keep their assets on orderbooks or in liquidity pools.
I would not want to be a friend to the sort of idiots who would say stuff like this. Having a target painted on my back as a decoy somehow makes it even worse.
Pemberton (where this home is located) is much wetter than Kelowna, so I think it's less of an issue. It's similar to the difference in Washington between the west slope of the North Cascades (such as Mt Baker, which holds the worldwide single season snowfall record) and the east slope of the North Cascades, which are dry and have large wildfire seasons.
Even the Olympic peninsula (rain forest) burns periodically. I’ve seen the burn scars from apocalyptic sized fires in central Ontario too. The Amazon burns when someone ‘helps it’ a little.
Everywhere dries out enough it will catch fire at least some of the year. If there is forest, there will be fire.
The problem lies with all of the little ways a dysfunctional democracy fails to take care of it's people. I don't think it makes any sense to suggest dissatisfaction causes these policies.
Politics is the culprit only in the sense that many otherwise straightforwardly practical issues have become politicized to the point that objectively poorer and often dangerously irresponsible choices are preferable to any choice that is associated with one's political opponents.
Looking at it this way, it is clearly the political situation that is causing dissatisfaction.
Self-responsibility is just a phrase. When elaborated into the idea you have suggested it crumbles. By the time the market corrects industrial causes of human suffering, far too much preventable suffering will have occurred.
Unless you are philosophically indifferent to human suffering your ideas about self-responsibility are empty nonsense. You have no grounds to criticize others for childish sentiments.